I have been researching and pondering over the relative merits of 2.8 MHz DSD and 24/192 recording with the D100.
Main conclusions so far:
* 24/192 has more information, is more 'detailed', but 2.8 MHz DSD generally sounds 'better' or more 'life-like' than 24/192 when used in a live music recording environment, dynamics and sense of depth/space are more analog-like
* 24/192 can be readily edited in a DAW as you would a 24/44 or 24/96 file
* 24/192 can be burnt to DVD-A (dual layer disc if needed)
* DSD cannot be edited in anything other than fairly expensive software programs (e.g. Pyramix $1,000 - edit)
* You can create your own DSD discs of recordings using the free software 'Audiogate' from Korg. This will let you trim, split, adjust levels up or down, join etc, and then create the necessary DSD file structure for DVD burning (but not effects/plug-ins/EQ etc)
* Native DSD files can only be easily played on the recorder itself, hooked up to hi-fi (or in Foobar if you have DSD-capable DAC - edit)
* DSD discs created from Audiiogate can be played very nicely on a Playstation PS3 (using the analog out, not digi....)
* Most universal disc players that tout DSD capability will convert the DSD signal to PCM if using digi out
* Most experts seem agreed that 5.6MHz DSD and 24/384 are the future and are as near-analog as currently possible in sound quality